Assembly Hall

Sorry Gizznitt for taking ages to reply, RL and all that.

As I often find with these long back and forth debates/discussions, the real message gets lost in ever branching and diverging discussion. So, I returned to your first post to read again what you said. Now correct me if I'm wrong , but really you object to the idea of players preying on other players doing PvE. You came up with a great list of things you do in game, but all but one involved attacking others that are looking for PvP or in the process of traveling. The one that might be used to attack PvEers "AFK cloaking" you described as "pathetic" which shows you have a pretty strong emotional hostility to the activity. You don't like players that target PvEers. Your comments about different fits also suggests that you really think PvP and PvE should be separated. Am I correct?

I believe that fundamentally EVE has the points of vulnerability backwards atm. At present you're pretty safe when PvEing in Null or you can forgo what risks there are in Null and go to High Sec and risk even less. However, travel is dangerous. It should be that travel is safer (weaker gate camp mechanics), and that whenever you access resources (PvE) you're more at risk. PvE should be thought of as fully part of the PvP dynamic, it fuels the machines of war and those harvesting it should be vulnerable to machines of war.

So, where does this fit in with the Local/Cloaking issue. I don't just think that cloaked ships should be less vulnerable flying about, I think they all should be, but especially smaller classes. Conflict and risk should come with interactions that can gain you something, So when mining or shooting rats you should be vulnerable to an attacker, and those attackers should they come should be vulnerable to traps and counter ambushes. RATs should change so that there isn't PvE and PvP fits, just ship fits, (not that it's impossible now to PvE in PvP fits, it's just less efficient). Now with all this in mind the CovOps ship while still the master of surprise, is like all others vulnerable at the point of interaction, because aside from travel and gathering intel they can't do anything cloaked, and the price for those advantages is gimped stats compared to non CovOps ships.




Yes I've been telling you Stealth does not have to equal invisibility (see my earlier DFO examples), I'm glad you accept that now. However, in EVE it does, due particularly to Local and Overview mechanics. I'm sorry but really Gizznitt you know this is BS, organized players (which you would expect from those in Null that aren't renters) are going to be able to figure out pretty quickly if one of the anonymous pilots in system are not one of them. In fact I'm fairly certain some metagame method will be engineered to make it rather effortless for them to do so. At this point, we're back to broken Cloaks, and not in a situation where cloak hunting can be introduced without being completely unbalanced. Friendly strangers, seriously? How much of Null is controlled by NRDS alliances?




Have you noticed how many different aspects of the game we have touched on in our back and forth arguing? If I Included all the "extras" my proposal would be so damn long no one would even read it. I linked the other thread, and people are more than welcome as they have to bring up issues in relation to other aspects of the game and for us to discuss those, but to include every possible thing changing Local and all the surrounding arguments touch on in my OP is completely unreasonable.

Had you considered that in my proposal and accompanying ideas a CovOps ship is stripped of current Local Intel as well? That in the Cloak hunting idea, the ship used to hunt cloaked ships is itself CovOps? I would say in this system CovOps ships are more vulnerable than near unprobable Booster ships are currently. ..and of course when/if a CovOps ship actually uncloaks and engages a target it's extremely vulnerable.

Incorrect. I target PvE'ers all the time, especially when soloing or small gang roaming. I don't do it by endlessly lurking in their system until they get careless, I do it by actually hunting them down. I enter a system, use the dscanner to quickly locate targets, and I attempt to catch them (something that requires at least a little skill!!!) I think making it mindlessly easy to hunt and gank PvE'ers is NOT healthy for nullsec, and that's exactly what your proposal enables. As for PvE vs PvP fits... my opinion is irrelevant, because PvE and PvP fits ARE separate (note: I'd like more sleeper/incursion types of nullsec PvE, because those PvE gangs can easily be transformed into PvP gangs).

Much of EvE's PvE activities should take into account Risk vs Reward. Currently, nullsec income for average joe is not very high, especially when you consider the risks associated with it in comparison to WH's, Incursions, and High-sec missioning. Yes, nullsec ratting is fairly safe, but its a little balanced with the rewards. Your suggestion destroys any safety a nullsec ratter has, essentially turning nullsec PvE into extremely high risk without touching the rewards. I find that extremely problematic!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it really sounds like you want to camp a system while being undetected, so you can mindlessly gank vulnerable pilots. I think nullsec hunting should involve roaming from system to system, and actually HUNTING targets BEFORE they realize you're a threat. While I consider camping a valid form of gameplay, it requires so little skill as is that I really I do NOT think it should be made easier!!!!!

Somewhere there is a very big communication mishap... let me explain:

IMO, with the current game mechanics:

1.) Avoiding a gatecamp is fairly easy. You just need a prepared scout to guide you along your path. If there IS a gate camp you simply avoid it. Getting through a gate camp is quite a bit harder, as it requires the ability to kite off the camp (speedy ships), the ability to avoid being tackled (covert ships), or the ability to fight through the camp... In a covert ship, it's mildly risky, but typically not to hard. In big ship, its almost impossible to get through a gate camp...

2.) Hunting ratters is NOT easy... KILLING ratters is VERY EASY. Most ratters have blatant weaknesses in their setup which can be exploited by any competent PvPer. I can point to many examples of PvE ships solo'd be frigates. The only difficulty in hunting ratters, is tackling them!!!

3.) My Helios and SB examples are there for two reasons: A.) To brag about my combat helios... and B.) To emphasize that these ships can easily perfrom a tackling role, and are NOT "extremely" vulnerable. Just because the majority of time these ships are not fit for combat, does NOT mean they are completely combat neutered. If people fit them for cloaky tackling, they are very effective!

With your changes:
1.) Hunting ratters becomes EXTREMELY EASY. By making Ratters easy to catch, you're removing the only hard part about hunting a PvE ship. Once caught, they're easily killed. Especially since your mechanic allows you to bring an entire cloaky gang ON-GRID with them before you decloak and aggress.




1.) If a PvEer in Nullsec is vulnerable to a solo covert ship, the are even MORE vulnerable to a gang of those ships. You might want to solo cloaky camp a system in a covert ship, and kill targets of opportunity with maybe a little risk to yourself... However, most people will use your mechanics, bring out entirely covert gangs, and gank targets with virtually NO RISK to themselves.

2.) What is a reasonable degree of vulnerability? In my mind, a reasonable degree of vulnerability is that for every 40 scout pilots coming through system looking for targets, I get snagged ONCE. With your setup, for every 40 covert scout pilots that come through system, I get caught 39 times or more!! In EvE, once you are tackled (especially in a belt), you rarely get free... Considering the rewards of ratting need to be balanced with the risks of ratting, how can you possibly think your system is appropriate?

Gizznitt, your last post certainly did make more sense, I still don't follow you to the same conclusion, but it no longer sounds like total crazy talk. I do think your setting scenarios where the player that is PvEing is as hopeless as you can conceive; solo, no friends or alies, no alts, doesn't watch DScan, fits for pure PvE, and so on. Where as at the other end its an organized PvP gang, with scouts, fast DScaners/probers, no other possible threats but the poor lone PvEer etc. That's not exactly going to lead you to a balanced conclusion.



I completely agree that resources to be gained in dangerous space need be worth the risk. This is the key reason High Sec PvE is such a huge problem in EVE, particularly high income low risk activities such as Incursions. That needs to change. To my knowledge EVE is the only Sandbox MMO built around player conflict that has high value PvE in areas protected by unbeatable NPCs.

I also agree there could be more intel tools, especially in the event of Local Intel as it is now disappearing. The idea presented here doesn't completely remove Local Intel, but it certainly makes it far less effective. Also while not part of the OP proposal, it is made with assumption that a form of Cloak Hunting is also introduced. CCP has hinted they want to change Local several times over the years, but in their last meeting with CSM 6 they also brought up their interest in Cloak Hunting. Something I strongly believe cannot happen without first doing away with Local Chat's 100% effortless intel function, or the result could well be the same as removing cloaks from the game.

Given the ideas in the OP, and the additions mentioned in the thread (that the delay on showing Local also applies to ships entering the system seeing ships already in it, means to hunt cloaking ships, an improved DScan, and of course an appropriately balanced Risk vs Reward across all of EVE space) what would you suggest to bring the proposal to a point you consider a balanced point that you would support?

Whelp if we need a new intel tool to replace local then we are going to have to design a new intel tool to replace local. I hate proposing completely new mechanics on the eve forums. But it's the only alternative to arguing around in circles about AFK cloaking.

So here goes.............

1. Remove local as an intel tool. Local is only there for chatting and smack talk. So it'll probably have to be the WH style delayed local.

2. This new intel tool should probably be a beefier and more robust version (and replacement) of D-scan and the system scanner. And it should be automatic so people don't have to keep clicking scan every 10 seconds.

3. All friendly ships (blues) should have some sort of IFF that makes them show up automatically without needing to show up on scan.

4. The new intel tool should be entirely based on in game mechanics. Maybe the time it would take to detect someone new comming in system could be based on a combination of sig radius, scan resolution, distance in AU, active modules, weither or not they are warping, and any other status effects.

5. By basing detection on gme mechanics this makes ships in the scout role more important. Think of the interceptor with it's low sig radius and high warp speed. It could get to sites faster and take longer to detect. Jumping in a scout ahead of the rest of the roaming gang to catch ratters will be more of an option.

6. Cloaked ships should not be 100% undetectable, this leads into whatever cloak hunting system CCP is working on. Cloaky hunting finally needs to be possible.

7. The new intel tool needs to take up less space on screen than what most people use when they pull out local chat. And it'd be nice if it was a little more engaging to look at than a list of people in local.

8. This new intel tool could be some sort of upgradable sov module that people can improve with effort. In highsec / lowsec it should be in it's most informative state (low risk / low reward space) and in wormholes it should be in it's lowest informative state (high risk / high reward space).

9. Personally I'd like ship detection in the new intel tool to be time based. So you will always eventually show up on scan, it's just the amount of time it takes for someone to show up that changes based on how slippery their ship is. This would make camping a system less effective than fast roaming gangs when trying to catch people. Although this is just personal preference. I'd like to see more roaming gangs as a gameplay style, instead of people just periodically checking cyno alts to see if anyone is doing anything in local.

I don't know if you've been on many fast moving, gank-the-local "targets of opportunity" style roams. But 90% of the time, the PvE'er gets caught in a belt, anomaly, or while traveling at a gate by the scout of a gang. Then the hostiles comes in and nukes them. The majority of the time, once your roaming gang lands, the chances of survival for the target are almost zero. Once the hostiles catch a ship or two, the locals typically safe up until you leave, or ship up to chase you out of their area. Standing home defense fleets are rarely proactively setup, and are almost always a REACTIONARY force formed up to counter the hostile gang (i.e. requiring several minutes to organize).

Currently, the most effective way to survive these roaming gangs is to avoid being caught... Once caught, the second method to survive is to escape the tackler before the gang can arrive. Failing that, you have to tank the gang until you're backup can survive. And very few ships can survive even 4x AF dps for more than 60 s.

No to this idea.


After reading the 4 pages of this thread, i find it funny when you said that the one guy who's probably the most sensible one so far has been posting crazy talks.

So I take it you avoid wormhole space like the plague then?

Bias is not a good idea if your going to be against delayed local.

1.-- By making intl shared between fleet members, it rewards those who are already in fleet. If you are in a fleet together, you moreless are working together. It also means you're more capable to form up a response gang. It also provides a way to share intel with non-alliance members.

2.-- But you do know who is friendly, mostly. That's the point of the standings system.

3.-- You might still want this... it just means his intel is shared with his fleet members too...

Gathering information on your opponents shouldn't be completely handed to you on a silver platter. Have tools to share the intel you took the time to gather makes that intel much more valuable to EVERYONE you share it with!

The ability to share intel with the fleet make the benefits of an intel gatherer much more tangibley. Furthermore, it allows multiple scouts to pool their intel and get a more accurate representation of what is going on in local. This is the only way to truly scout a system with a large number of pilots!!! In the end, this creates an environment where pilots can be more situationally aware, which is important for being a good pilot.

Does this mean that people can put their alt into a cloaky ship and have it sit and watch a gate, essentially giving easy intel to all in system fleeted with said person... Yes it does... However, I'm leaning towards this being a minor evil. Many systems have several entrances, thereby eliminating the effectiveness of this tactic.

If you're worried about it being too passive, I'd much rather have a "transmit" button that a pilot activates to share the info with fleet members. I think this is a needed mechanic to really bring intel gathering into it's proper role... i.e. intel gathering is done by dedicated intel gathering ships to be shared with the rest of the fleet, which aren't as competent at gathering intel.